WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT. This reminds me exactly of the type of pablum my boss prattles on about every single goddamn week.
Let's go point by point, shall we?
Point 1: lack of local competition made newspapers soft and weak. Well, if you're referring to newspapers, sure. But isn't one of this site's very tenets that newspapers are facing competition from outside the print industry. First it was radio, then it was television, then it was the Internet. Newspapers ALWAYS
had competition. It's not a lack of competition. It's a conscious decision not to compete; to yield certain aspects of the industry to the other mediums. Newspapers going soft had nothing to do with competition or lack thereof.
Point 2: Design directors made newspapers soft and weak. Are you saying that actually making the paper easier to read was a bad thing? There's not a layout man in the world who would say this.
Point 3: Well, actually, I can't disagree with that one.
While USA Today has its place, and I do read the free copies I get when I stay in hotels, I find it, um, ironic that a founder of USA Today is bemoaning newspapers for being soft and weak.
@1.1.1.: I thought it was Star Wars. I read a book about the last dying gasp of movies in the seventies, from Easy Rider to Bonnie and Clyde, and it said the comics come to film killed the art dead as a ham.
The day that the New York Times goes out of business is the day our pretense at civilized society in this country is permanently ended. Snipe away at its many failings, but it's absolutely nothing to gloat about, the very idea. I'd gladly pay thrice to keep it afloat, and believe me, nothing will replace it. Much less you lot.
Malevolent wishes have a way of returning to sender.
Seriously, enjoy your USAToday, if you get jollies from imagining the death of the Times.
@Baroness: While the New York Times has gone downhill (the Sunday Magazine, seriously. anyone remember it from the 90s???), USA Today isn't in much better shape. Me I read Sacramento and Modesto Bees. I suggest you start, too. regional and local news coverage/media are the wave of the future.
@VirginUrgin: Have you read NYT's local coverage - I actually think its pretty great (better than you would find in papers that existed soley for local coverage). I'm terrible spelling names, but Raushbaum (?), Confessore and a few others over there are fanastic.
@Baroness: "..The day that the New York Times goes out of business is the day our pretense at civilized society in this country is permanently ended..."
Oh hogwash. Getting information from a sheaf of pulped paper has become economically and environmentally unsound. If the content is valuable, then it should be relatively easy to transition to an electronic medium. It's only a matter of figuring out how to secure a revenue stream. Science journals, as of this writing, frequently have both free and subscriber content. The NYT can too.
On the other hand, I doubt that there is that much interest in buying a subscription to a bale of someone elses opinions. Genuine reportage will have no such limitation. I guess they just aren't so important that they can frame the news as if they owned deed and title to it. And THAT is a GOOD thing.
Don't forget that Hirschorn was VH1's "Celebreality Guru" so he knows hard news. (No, really, it was a good article, although he admits that the chance of the NYT actually going out of biz this spring is "slim". I'd say "to none" because they will sell part of the building, sports team, etc. before they let that happen.)
My blog lives and dies by the Times' free archives, so if the paper goes all digital as Hirschorn predicts, I will feel obligated to pay for some kind of subscription. (Throwing money at it now, though, seems dreadfully pointless.)
We cannot let this happen...yet I still cannot bring myself to pay for something that I can get for free. And I'm beginning to understand mens' reluctance to marry.
The scariest part about the demise of the NYT would be Rupert Murdoch's monopoly on newsprint in NYC
it was always Rupert's intention to destroy the NYT with the WSJ and thanks to the Sulzberger family's ineptitude Rupert didn't even have to spend a dime to accomplish it
@Beautiful Stranger: Not if they keep leaving! We're down to like three (After today's review of The City, I'm not convinced Parnee and Richard are actually separate people).
@Iceland_Spar: Just wait for the email: Due to the furthering economic decline, Nick Denton no longer finds Gawker economically viable. You may choose to have your Gawker password work as a login to one of these three websites: ap.com, cuteoverload.com or americanapparel.com.
Now that we've put come flava up in the White House, the next, great frontier for people of color: the writing rooms at the late night comedy shows. You've got to be-lieve!
03/29/09
Let's go point by point, shall we?
Point 1: lack of local competition made newspapers soft and weak. Well, if you're referring to newspapers, sure. But isn't one of this site's very tenets that newspapers are facing competition from outside the print industry. First it was radio, then it was television, then it was the Internet. Newspapers ALWAYS
03/29/09
Point 2: Design directors made newspapers soft and weak. Are you saying that actually making the paper easier to read was a bad thing? There's not a layout man in the world who would say this.
Point 3: Well, actually, I can't disagree with that one.
03/29/09
03/29/09
That's Al.
03/29/09
03/29/09
03/29/09
03/29/09
Ironic. Rather.
In sort-of-related news, did you know that Steven Spielberg and Jaws killed the movies?
03/29/09
Same idea. Mindless spectacular dreck.
01/06/09
Malevolent wishes have a way of returning to sender.
Seriously, enjoy your USAToday, if you get jollies from imagining the death of the Times.
01/06/09
Me I read Sacramento and Modesto Bees. I suggest you start, too. regional and local news coverage/media are the wave of the future.
01/06/09
01/06/09
Oh hogwash. Getting information from a sheaf of pulped paper has become economically and environmentally unsound. If the content is valuable, then it should be relatively easy to transition to an electronic medium. It's only a matter of figuring out how to secure a revenue stream. Science journals, as of this writing, frequently have both free and subscriber content. The NYT can too.
On the other hand, I doubt that there is that much interest in buying a subscription to a bale of someone elses opinions. Genuine reportage will have no such limitation. I guess they just aren't so important that they can frame the news as if they owned deed and title to it. And THAT is a GOOD thing.
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
it was always Rupert's intention to destroy the NYT with the WSJ and thanks to the Sulzberger family's ineptitude Rupert didn't even have to spend a dime to accomplish it
01/06/09
01/06/09
Tbe synergies would be amazing. Mister Hippity could live blog world events for us.
And Sinister Rouge could replace Maureen Dowd on the op-ed page!
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
What will my subscription to the New York Times be replaced with?
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
(Which was also where a group of insane, snobby, left-wing, elites used to be, but the reporting sections had much more content than the editorial.)
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/07/09
01/06/09
11/07/08
11/07/08